That famous consensus

EC

Excellent as usual Melanie. The Moral Maze would make excellent TV. I'd love to see you cross-examine some of these charlatans. Now that would actually be worth the licence fee!

Dixon

[Note to mods: I posted this on previous thread on topic but it hasnt appeared there yet and is much more relevant on this board. Please forgive me re-posting it.]

"Scientific consensus" had it only twenty years ago that we would by now have millions of people dying of JCD!

Did we ever hear anyone in the media who had bought that view pipe up and say "we got it wrong?"

History is littered with "consensus" opinions based on cod-science that were never declared to have been wrong but quietly forgotten.

R.V.Jones in "Most Secret War" recounts how he was unable to convince fellow scientists in briefings of Churchill that what was plainly visible in aerial photos of Peenemunde was a gigantic ballistic missile. That was considered to be "scientifically" impossible! The "consensus" was that it must be a new type of torpedo...even though there didnt exist an airplane big enough to carry such a 46 foot behemoth. Not long later, the first of some 1400 of these "torpedoes" ( the V2 ) began to rain down on London.

At the end of WW2 it was scientific consensus in the UK ( reflected in a famously "scientific" declaration from the Royal Society ) that it would be impossible...yes IMPOSSIBLE...to place a spaceship on the Moon, for a series of axiomatic and "scientific" reasons. Noone ever owned up and said "Iwas wrong" when the Russians did just that little over a decade later.

Then more recently George Monbiot has on CH4 news in argument pulled out a piece of paper and read from it a declaration affirming the apocalyptic reality of man-made climate change, published under the auspices of none other than the Royal Society. as though that trumped all other argument.

Nobody learns. Meanwhile, the Royal Society has barred Susan Greenfield from ascending to its chairmanship on the grounds ...basically...that she is a working class woman who likes to wear short skirts! ...Such a "scientific" body to have on ones side.

Malthus created a "consensus" of "scientific" opinion in his day that by the 1900s we would all be starved out of existence.

In the 19th Century, it was predicted that the industrial revolution and economic expansion was doomed because of the "scientific fact" that it would be impossible to breed enough horses to keep up with demand. Henry Ford had yet to make his mark on the world.

It was also predicted that with the rapid urbanisation of Manhatten Island there would be an environmental disaster ...so consensus had it...caused by the accumulation of horse dung faster than it could be removed.

Today, in Opthalmology there is a "consensus" that the alleged phenomenon of dual cortical mapping associated with Anomalous Retinal Convergence ( ARC ) is a fact whilst in neurology there is a concensus that the same effect is a myth! Two valid scientific fields in one of which "consensus" is diametrically the opposite of that found on the same topic in the other!

All the twaddle about "he's a scientist, she's a layman" boils down to merely "he's anointed high priest and she should know her place". It has no place indeed, in any intelligent debate. Especially when those who try to pull authority in terms of "science" seem to know so little about its nature and history and the elusive nature of knowledge and "proof" itself.

Michael B

Airbrushing, "interpolations," positing non-existent weather stations, creative "algorithms," frauds and flim flams in general - such is "science" in the age of ideological trumpery and triumphalism. And yet, as Melanie is correct to emphasize, it often requires repeated and titanic efforts to unmask this "creativity" and expose it to the light of day.

What this further hints at - and admittedly only hints at - is the pseudo-philosophy of scientism that subtends, that undergirds so much of this officious trumpery.

And yet - and here we find a multiplicity of ironies - we're not suppose to notice. Instead, we're suppose to believe and, likewise, we're suppose to subject the "deniers" - the unbelievers - to contumely and scorn and excommunicate them from "liberal society."

Dixon

Michael B
February 7th, 2009 7:49pm
Airbrushing, "interpolations," positing non-existent weather stations, creative "algorithms," frauds and flim flams in general - such is "science" in the age of ideological trumpery and triumphalism. And yet, as Melanie is correct to emphasize, it often requires repeated and titanic efforts to unmask this "creativity" and expose it to the light of day.
What this further hints at - and admittedly only hints at - is the pseudo-philosophy of scientism that subtends, that undergirds so much of this officious trumpery."

This is part of the problem with bad science. It discredits science itself.

Science is in its essence, establishing what the effect of one thing is upon another when all other variables are constant. This simple principle cannot be faulted. That bad science fails to embody such clarity does not invalidate the principle itself.

In my view, existence is a vast wild ocean trying to pound us to bits and swallow us up. Science is our only floating thing to cling to. Religion, meanwhile, may be an anchor, but it will take us to the very bottom!

AntonioSosa

Greetings from the U.S, Melanie! Thinking Americans agree with you. Man-made Global Warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. Václav Klaus, president of the European Union, is right when he states that “environmentalism is the new communism and climate change is a myth.”

In agreement with Klaus, more than 650 international scientists dissent over the man-made global warming claims. They are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

“Progressive” (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted millions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’ Wall Street friends), increase the power of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

john

When the twin towers came down Liberals were off balance to say the least. The connection between Multiculturalism and Terrorism was a brick wall. They had to rally en mass around Global Warming to reinvent their cause. They will not back down because to do so would leave them with nothing but their failed political ideal and what its done to our society (police state).
We will find that Global Warming has more heads than the Hydra.

Augustus

From a purely scientific standpoint the evidence gathered in the 1990s that carbon emissions caused global warming has now been weakened. Ice core data from the mid-1980s through the 1990s allowed scientists to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the data points evidence then available, atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep; they rose and fell together. A smoking gun was born. No other cause of global warming was credible.

This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and the Kyoto Protocol was signed to curb carbon emissions. Correlation was, of course, not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit. Then in turn, the political realm fed money back into the scientific community. By the end of the century lots of jobs depended on the idea. Many of these were bureaucratic, but a lot were scientific ones too. It was a gravy train. People had political support, the ear of governments, big budgets. They felt important and useful. They were working to save the planet.

But in the new millenium the last of the pieces of evidence started to fall away. Better data showed that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in 2003. By 2004 scientists knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction assumed in the 1990s -
it runs the opposite way!

Dave

*sigh*
Read. Mark. And inwardly digest, Mel.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646
Then apologise for the horrific mess you helped cause over MMR which will result in the deaths of children.
Then we can talk about your "thoughts" on climate change.

The Crow

Melanie my dear: you are always like a breath of spring in an Ice Age of forlorn foolishness.
My admiration is yours.

freespeech

Dave wrote:
"Read, Mark and inwardly digest, Mel"

I read the article you seem to like so much, it seemed to cherry pick to make its point. For example it quotes one part of the NRC report but ignores another
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999)
that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least
a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for
individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because
not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."

Mann's hockey stick isn't being vindicated by this report, but it is best if you read the whole thing, rather than take the word of the writer of your quoted article.

Robbins Mitchell

It seems to me that skepticism ought to be the default setting for anyone who is presented with ANY claim about AGW and that this attitude is really more in keeping with the 'scientific method' that anAL GOREtentive and his coterie of climate cassandras claim to represent....and given the real time data that indicates that the Earth is now in a mild cooling cycle despite increasing levels of carbon dioxide would tend to put the lie to all the alarmism anyway

Owen Morgan

"Dave" says: "Then we can talk about your "thoughts" on climate change."

Ermm, no, "Dave". "Global warming" is the issue under discussion here. In the vanishingly small likelihood that you have any valid argument with which to counter those deployed by Melanie Phillips above, let's see them. As things stand, in common with other fundamentalist, anti-scientific, adherents of the "global warming" faith, you adopt a stance that amounts to a flat refusal to debate with anyone who fails to profess the same delusions as you do.

I noticed when the Berlin Wall came down, how swiftly ardent Reds became died-in-the-wool Greens, although the only thing in history more toxic to the environment than the Communist USSR is Communist China. Authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent are as much at home in the "Green" milieu as they were in the "Red" one.

Brian Richard Allen

Brilliant! Thank you, Ms Phillips.

Blessings from Brian

Bishop Hill

I wrote a layman's story of certain aspects of the Hockey Stick saga, which may be of interest.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Michael B

Dixon, it seems you misunderstand. I suggested nothing whatsoever against more genuine forms of science - to the contrary and decidedly so. Rather, I spoke against pseudo- and quasi-philosophical outlooks that can be conceived under the rubric of "scientism." Scientism, or the scientistic world view, is the reductionist certitude and general belief that all truth - and not merely identifiable facts, working hypotheses, larger theoretical frameworks, etc. - is achievable via science, via the scientific method - at least in theory. It's a world view that typically is conceived upon a metaphysical materialsim - a physicalism - very often a determinism as well. Within the philosophy of mind, an eliminativist materialism is the most radical form of materialism as it further posits that mental states (e.g., desire, hope) are not real, do not truly exist, but rather are artifacts of a "folk psychology," artifacts that neuroscience and other purportedly pure scientific disciplines will some day, at some more enlightened point in the future, vanquish. Such a positivism reflects the beliefs and certitudes and dogmas of people like Dawkins, Dennett and others, at least so in proximate terms.

Now, that's my layman's spur-of-the-moment definition only. Take it with a grain of salt, but it is broadly suggestive of some wide ranging material, all of it relevant to your statement. Once the topic is opened up it can very quickly get into some arcane and abstruse subject matter in disciplines that include epistemology, ontology and the philosophy of science in general.

wolf

I nominated Melanie for the first Christopher Booker prize!
Hope she gets it!

Pot Head

Not looking good in today's Sunday Times for another one of Mel's pet projects, Andrew Wakefield fabricated his data.

Ben Goldacre got it spot on when he said Mel & science is like watching a train crash in slow motion.

C'mon when are we going to see a apology or a correction for all those MMR articles in the Daily Wail.

The essence of science is to admit mistakes and revise theories as new evidence comes along. The essence of Mel's brand of punditry is COR carry on regardless what ever that pesky "leftie" evidence might say. You're no scientist your just a pumped up self important hack with a far to big an ego.

nosmo29

Dave:
It woulor be as well for you to suggest that people look at all the comments on this article. Not every reader accepts that man made GW is taking place.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

barking toad

But, but... the models agree that when we agreed that Antarctica was actually getting colder that was exactly what the models predicted and it is proof of global warmimg.

And when our new models confirmed that Antarctica was actually getting warmer, that was exactly what the models always predicted and it is proof of global warming.

I'm sick of you deniers!

S. Andersson

Great stuff! I noted that some climate sceptic blogs in Sweden now has a new nickname for the infamous Antarctica weather station: Dirty Harry :-)

Dixon

Michael B, actually, I DID understand yyour point. I thought my addition was not inconsistant with it.

However, I take issue with the critique you refer to. That artefacts such as "hope" cannot be reduced to molecules and atoms does not mean that the phenomenology of such experiences is not a part of the material universe. It is not something from outside the realm of that which is susceptible to scientific scrutiny. Nothing that exists is exempt from the rules that govern the universe in which it exists, even if some of those rules may prove not merely difficult but impossible to comprehend.

You may have seen me on here denouncing "morality" and "ethics" as things which simply do not exist. But that is a seperate order of things again. "Hope", "love" etc are characterisations of actual events, even if the terms of their characterisation may ultimately be found to be merely caricature. "Morality" and "ethics" are imagined universal "rules", conceived in terms analogous to the "laws" of physics, but which possess no such material foundation, existing only in the minds of humans.

Eliminate Humanity and the laws of nature remain in our absence. Eliminate Humanity and "morality", "ethics" and "rights" dissapear with us. Ergo, they are a product of human culture and not an aspect of the universe. This may seem obvious to the point of childishness. But to read comments here in some of the debates about Israel etc you would think it needs to be pointed out repeatedly.

As I see it, "hope" or, to pick a more pertinent example, "altruism" is ultimately a Human rationalisation of processes that are reducible to biology and indeed genetics. So on that I am on Dawkins side and will, with I hope mutual respect, accross the fence from you.

Nonetheless, I regard Dawkins as an irritating, bumptious little man who does more harm than good in his public appearances and on TV. His books however have no doubt done great good.

Linda Smith

I do not subscribe to the global man made warming theory. But do any of the commenters on this blog have any information about the effects on us of increasing the quantity of Co2 in the atmosphere?

Linda Smith

I do not subscribe to the global man made warming theory. But do any of the commenters on this blog have any information about the effects on us of increasing the quantity of Co2 in the atmosphere?

Dixon

Pot Head, Ben Goldacre et al, are simply using Melannie as a straw man. Knock down Mel and you appear to have knocked down the side of the argument she has taken. Ur, no, its irrelevant more like.

She may have got it wrong over MMR ( I wasnt reading these blogs then, but thats the impression I get ) but EVERYONE is liable to "get it wrong" sometimes. Heck, Isaac Newton was a bloody alchemist who thought the destiny of Mankind was encoded in the Bible in secret ciphers!!!!! That doesn't invalidate his insights into physics and co-invention of calculus!

Sure, Nel aint no Newton. But that makes it all the more absurd to try to argue that the views she adopts must be wrong because of the mere fact that she adopts them!

Why not try to stick to the message and not the messenger?

Dixon

barking toad
February 8th, 2009 11:59am
But, but... the models agree that when we agreed that Antarctica was actually getting colder that was exactly what the models predicted and it is proof of global warmimg.
And when our new models confirmed that Antarctica was actually getting warmer, that was exactly what the models always predicted and it is proof of global warming.
I'm sick of you deniers!"

This is the kind of IDIOT I have referred to in earlier comments!

When the figures in the original model didnt predict the data, they created "our new model". One that made the figures fit retrospectively. DOH! How damn idiotic is that. It means that WHATEVER data emerge, they can always rewrite the model to make it correspond.

Its like someone getting the wrong answers in a test rewriting the questions so that his answers are now right! DOH! As thick as the proverbial short planks.

At first I though that comment was intended as a joke. Now I realise the person who wrote it was serious. Reread it and laugh at the kind of idiot who cannot see the blatant absurdity of his own feeble "thought" processes!

Climate change twaddlers, most people are sick of you!

Pot Head

Dixon - But the issues she has had with MMR goes to the root of the problem she's has with science. Firstly at the most basic level she doesn't understand how it works and her dogma won't allow her to admit to any mistakes which is the antithesis of a scientific enquring mind.

Mel getting it wrong on MMR has put childrens lives at risk and in the face of clear and growing evidence she refuse to admit to any mistake.

For Mel the facts must manipulated or ignored to fit her world view not the other way round.

Remember she's a creationist the most dogmatic position imaginable.

Alan B

Dixon
February 8th, 2009 1:36pm

I took the comment by barking toad to be irony ...

Garacka

Dave, February 8th, 2009 12:13am"

You're link to the hockey stick report does not do "justice" to it. If you want to hear the debunking from the source try reading the following blog discussion by one of the 2 authors of the debunking analysis (McKitrick); http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166

Richard Lawson

Melanie, you say "Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels".

Records are sparse in Antarctica, but show a slight warming over the past 40 years, and a possible cooling over the last 20 years.

Please understand that Global Warming means, er, global. That is, warming of the planet as a whole. This does not mean a beneficent balmy warming, evenly spread out, rather, an increase in extreme weather events. There is a difference between global climate and local weather.

Models predict that warming will be seen more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere. The data seem to bear this out.

Best wishes
Richard

Aidan Thomas

Maybe one day the world will wake up to the psuedo scienec of the proponents of evolution, which is based on so much hypothesis and yet is trumopeted as factual evidence

Dixon

Alan B
February 8th, 2009 3:54pm
Dixon
February 8th, 2009 1:36pm
I took the comment by barking toad to be irony ...2

I thought that at first, as I said, i though it was a joke, but then I looked at the "punchline" and realised it wasnt!

Dixon

Pot Head, you are still missing the point. Whether you respect mels judgement on any topic or not has no bearing upon the merits of the respective positions on the topic in question!

If the MMR hysteria had a culprit, it was that bloke with the strange top lip and his phoney "research", not the myriad pundits who chose one side or the other.

Didnt he also play that "Q" in Star Trek Next Generation series umptillion?

Richard Lawson

The "Medieval Warm Period" idea by E-G Beck, is based on work old science that has been superseded.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

Dixon

Aidan Thomas
February 8th, 2009 6:09pm
Maybe one day the world will wake up to the psuedo scienec of the proponents of evolution, which is based on so much hypothesis and yet is trumopeted as factual evidence"

Oh my gonad! With "friends" like this, "scepotics" need no enemies!

Dixon

Linda Smith
February 8th, 2009 1:22pm
I do not subscribe to the global man made warming theory. But do any of the commenters on this blog have any information about the effects on us of increasing the quantity of Co2 in the atmosphere?"

What you need to realise is that man made CO2 constitutes less than about eight or nine per cent of vthe total anyway. This is partly why the anthropogenic hypothesis is so implausible. Its like saying we have a greenhouse with ninety one panes and it used to be fine inside but we unshrouded just nine more and now its an oven!

Tim Bromige

Linda Smith. Have a look at www.wattsupwiththat.com or www.climateaudit.org. Essentially, CO2 warming, which is real, declines logarithmically with concentration. The first 20ppm contribute something in the order of 80% of the maximum possible warming. Doubling from now (~350ppm) will have a negligible effect, at least as far as warming is concerned. It will do wonders for the plants. CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!

Tim Bromige

Richard Lawson.

Models, schmodels. The GCMs on which the warmists must rely, there being no hard science to show that any recent warming is anything other than natural variations, "predicted" that Antartica would cool as a consequence of AGW. Which it did. Then Steig, Mann et al discovered that it was, in fact, warming. Proof, we hear, of AGW. Is it only me that sees the disconnect here? Other than barking toad, who was being ironic, I fancy.

Tim Bromige

Richard Lawson.

"The "Medieval Warm Period" idea by E-G Beck, is based on work old science that has been superseded."

The article you link to does nothing to debunk the MWP (something the warmists have been trying to do away with) which is pretty well documented by independent research (i.e. independent from the warmist camp). Indeed, I don't see ANYTHING in the article that even addresses the MWP.

Mia Nony

Thanks for providing a ground wire for this, pardon the pun, "burning" issue, Melanie. In this emerging post rational era common sense is needed more than ever. As for the goal of razing a global village on the pretext of "saving" it? Alarmists are born followers whose own inability to EVER be real leaders is proven over & over again, only in part by the very fact that they are apparently prepared to do whatever it takes to force easily disputed junk science lies down the throats of those with the decency & common sense to shun religious fundamentalists hysterics & the intelligence to protest fake tax grabs. Occasionally one wonders if enough other people question just why the depopulationist gang seem, almost like addicts hooked on a death drug, to crave the finality of apocalyptic, imminent climate Armageddon. It is not all that difficult to understand what runs those who generate & exploit fear. Each era has it own snake oil showmen more than happy to oblige the alarmists in the crowd by providing fictional proof of whatever "end-of-the-world" de jour scenario proves the most lucrative at any given moment. For instance, the Goracle's net worth has increased more than a hundred fold. Less clear, though, is why born followers (some 65%) see no problem whatsoever with using any means possible to have this Communitarian end goal of one world order through financial & climate catastrophism achieved. Warmists appear equally willing to unhesitatingly use routine lying or any other kind of ethical bankruptcy to try to achieve their irrational, "fear-mageddon" goals. Other than during times of planned upheaval & chaos, strategically controlled by the likes of Hitler destroying people through means of totalitarian dictatorship, rarely otherwise does one live in such "interesting" times or witness unleashed with political approval such an extreme misanthropic, eugenics embracing hatred of one's fellow humans.

Straydingo

Pot Head,

Can I suggest you stop smoking - MMR and AGW are not in the very slightest related as topics. As someone has pointed out already MP is not an Oracle...she is human and therefore not perfect. However, she puts forward arguments that in her heart of hearts she believes in. It is then up to those that read her blog entry's to digest and research her opinions and then make up our own minds.

Have you ever held an incorrect opinion or made an error in judgement? If you have would you expect everyone to judge you on these errors until the end of time?

Straydingo

Richard Lawson,

Clearly you only what one news channel - if you had over the last several years you would have seen that temperature have been dropping across the global - from South America, Asia, Europe to North America - don't take my word for it and have a look for yourself.

nef

I'm a research chemist, who uses Fourier Transform infra-red spectroscopy on a daily basis to study molecular structure.

Do you know what the first thing I do every morning in the lab is? I spend an hour flushing the machine through with nitrogen, purging the machine of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And why do I do this? It's because CO2 is an incredibly efficient absorber of IR radiation. I don't need the IPCC to tell me that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere might not be a smart thing to do. I see the evidence every working day.

Dave

Straydingo: Well no. Not really. Here's a nice summation;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527

By the way, are you a straydingo driven out of Australia by the incredible heat?

Dixon

nef
February 9th, 2009 8:46am
I'm a research chemist, who uses Fourier Transform infra-red spectroscopy on a daily basis to study molecular structure.
Do you know what the first thing I do every morning in the lab is? I spend an hour flushing the machine through with nitrogen, purging the machine of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And why do I do this? It's because CO2 is an incredibly efficient absorber of IR radiation. I don't need the IPCC to tell me that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere might not be a smart thing to do. I see the evidence every working day."

And a bank of the stuff in the atmosphere creates "albedo". Which relative to particular angles of incidence reflects IR AWAY from Earth, back into space.

And humans only contribute between 6-9 % of CO2 to whats already there anyway.

And orbital procession explains both warming on Earth AND Mars, which an Anthropogenic hypothesis does not ( unless you believe in Martians ).

And there has been...in fact...no recorded increase in the Earths temperature this century anyway.

So whats there to "explain".

Or to put that last question another way, if you are a scientist you ought be aware of the concept of "sufficient and necessary" in the evaluation of an hypothesis.

Tut, tut, tut...

You dont need the IPCC to tell you anything. But someone needs to tell you that the issue is as much about astronomy as chemistry and that looking the wrong way up a microscope is not the same as using a telescope.

Nef, you really illustrate the problem of the narrow frame of reference...indeed, the "narrowmindedness" of "believers".

Dixon

...or even the wrong end of a spectroscope.

Dixon

Tim Bromige
February 8th, 2009 7:09pm
Linda Smith. Have a look at www.wattsupwiththat.com or www.climateaudit.org. Essentially, CO2 warming, which is real, declines logarithmically with concentration. The first 20ppm contribute something in the order of 80% of the maximum possible warming. Doubling from now (~350ppm) will have a negligible effect, at least as far as warming is concerned. It will do wonders for the plants. CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!"

So even my analogy understates the insignuificance of the additional human CO2!

Wow, good bit of information!

Steve

nef

"I don't need the IPCC to tell me that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere might not be a smart thing to do."

The fact you dont need something doesn't reassure me of your scientific credentials let alone comfort me about your thinking about your ability to dictate policy on fuel usage and any priorities of social control.

I guess you dont need to think about any possible absorbtion of Co2 either?

Are you sure you aren't just a bit of a flunky who's been told they have a 'very important job' to do first thing in the morning?

Dixon

Tim Bromige
February 8th, 2009 7:22pm
Richard Lawson.
Models, schmodels. The GCMs on which the warmists must rely, there being no hard science to show that any recent warming is anything other than natural variations, "predicted" that Antartica would cool as a consequence of AGW. Which it did. Then Steig, Mann et al discovered that it was, in fact, warming. Proof, we hear, of AGW. Is it only me that sees the disconnect here? Other than barking toad, who was being ironic, I fancy."

well, I thought I commented on that, but not willing to accept that "Barking Toad" was being ironic, it seems my remark may have been disqualified in some way.

The point you are making is the important one that a prediction based on a hypothesis is incorrect and invalidates the hypothesis whether the data scores either more OR less than the predicted figure. At least in a matter such as temperature.

To say "we predicted X amount of increase in temperature but it was actually twice that" is as much a contradiction of the "model" used to make the prediction as if it had been half the amount predicted. This type of statement arises frequently in this topic. But the nuance is utterly lost on the media and the faithful.

Dave

Nef: "Nef, you really illustrate the problem of the narrow frame of reference...indeed, the "narrowmindedness" of "believers"."

Oh come on, Dixon. You're doing exactly what you accuse him of. A but more research and you'd learn much more about the current state of climate science.
Still throwing in the word "albedo" was a cute touch

J C

Excellent, balanced and fair article. Glad to see some journalists are finally seeing Global Wraming, sorry it's now Climate Change because temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 for what it is - RUBBISH!

Julian Fruppapoipepauppioioip

Can someone supply me with the missing link in the argument I use to try to convince people that the "green" brigade's position is suspect?

Most people, apart from the "La-la-la, I can't hear you" lot, are reasonably open to the idea that bad science is being promoted, that scientists have resigned from the IPCC because of political interference and that if the green lobby has to distort the facts so much its case is possibly weak.

What I find tricky is the question, "What is their motive?"

If it were the usual suspects - evil multi-national oil companies trying to sell us more oil, horrid governments trying to make us consume more - the argument would be routine.

However, it is precisely the touchy-feely lefties (Green Party, IPCC (part of UN)) who are foisting this rubbish on us.

The only plausible motives I have been able to think of are: (1) it's a good way of taxing us more: (2) lefties like to control people; (3) Al Gore might make some money with his carbon trading business.

Some of you may think that these three factors explain it, but only the first comes close to explaining the sheer magnitude of the deception that has taken place. The second seems not directly concerned enough with money, and, even if Al Gore does make an extra dollar or two, he's only one person, and I find it hard to believe that the carbon trading industry is so profitable that it can explain such a mass delusion.

When intelligent skeptics ask why, when oil companies and consumption-promoting governments, with all the power and money they have at their disposal, haven't won the propaganda war, I haven't got an answer apart form my rather feeble attempt above.

Original Tony

Us humans are thick and never learn from the past.
Duh, why is vine street called that in london? Because GRAPES were grown there when the climate was many degrees warmer than now.
When did the Thames freeze over? 1850's ????
Roman vineyards in the North!!
Duh....global warming?
What about reporters shouting 'new ice age is coming!'back in the 1970's.
Oh pleeeeeze!!

An astronomer writes

Dixon. There's no such thing as 'orbital procession'. I think the term you're looking for is 'precession'.

And could you point me to some references in the peer-reviewed literature discussing 'global warming' on Mars? As far as I'm aware we only have sporadic climatology data for the past 30 years or so from the Red Planet. Precession occurs over tens of thousands of years.

And finally, regarding the influence of atmospheric CO2 on climate, I suggest you compare and contrast the atmospheric composition, orbital distance and mean surface temperature of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Get back to us when you've done that.

Conservative Cabbie

Dixon

Very interesing philosophical comment about the nature of ethics and morality?

However, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assertions. You say that ethics and morality are human constructs whilst hope and love are human 'expressions' of events that exist within the natural laws. But natural laws only exist within the current level of comprehension of the human mind. Science, and our understanding of the laws of physics, are restricted by the sum total of human understanding. That something may exist beyond the laws of physics cannot be discounted purely because we cannot at present prove or disprove it. This is why theology and philosophy deserve equal status with science, they are able to reach beyond knowledge and attempt to understand possibility.

My other concern is that your nihilistic approach to ethics and morality leads to a metaphysical vacuum. If those values are as fallacious as you say, how does one choose how to live? If the foundations of morality are removed as you propose, won't society crumble like a house of cards? Even if there is no trancendent order in the universe, isn't the charade of a justifiable morality a vital bulwark against at best anomie, and at worst a nihilistic anarchy.

Dixon

An astronomer writes
February 9th, 2009 3:40pm
Dixon. There's no such thing as 'orbital procession'. I think the term you're looking for is 'precession'. "

-----Regular readers are aware of my atrocious spelling and keyboard solecisms. Apologies for that.

"..And could you point me to some references in the peer-reviewed literature discussing 'global warming' on Mars? As far as I'm aware we only have sporadic climatology data for the past 30 years or so from the Red Planet. "

---which is also true of sattelite observation of the Earth, gouing back only forty years.

Surface features on Mars indicate the presence of liquid water on the surface in geologically recent times. The atmosphere is too thin for water to exist on the surface now ( it boils away ). The dissapearance of liquid water and most of the atmosphere would count as pretty substantial "climate change" I think most people would agree.

"...Precession occurs over tens of thousands of years. "

---As does climate change. The current variations in the Earths temperature over timescales of decades and centuries are very minor fluctuations compared to the substantive climate changes that have taken place over millenia and tens of millenia. The Northern Hemisphere was once covered by ice a mile deep. Nothing projected in current "climate change" debates comes even remotely near such real changes as the dissapearance of such an ice sheet.

"...And finally, regarding the influence of atmospheric CO2 on climate, I suggest you compare and contrast the atmospheric composition, orbital distance and mean surface temperature of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Get back to us when you've done that."

---and finally, patronising attempts to talk down to me backfire as you cast serious doubt on your legitimate claim on the title of "An astronomer": Mercury has no atmosphere. Doh!

aside from which, we are talking here about variations in temperatures at one planet, not differences between temperatures at different distances from the sun. The atmosphere of Venus contains immense quantities of other greenhouse gasses. The Greenhouse action of CO2 ois not something you will find I have ever questioned, but the significance of the Human contribution, a mere 6-9% is very questionable indeed.

Now one for you, would you say Titan has a balmy climate? It has plenty of Methane, so wheres its greenhouse effect?

Michael B

Dixon, no, the greater part of your commentary is not remotely consonant with my own. It is more inline with Dawkinsesque levels of tendentiousness; you're forwarding tautologies, circular reasoning and mere assertions and imagining them to be sound forms of argumentation.

Dixon

Julian Fruppapoipepauppioioip:

You cannot ascribe one set of reasons to all parties concerned.

Western governments are belatedly and quite frantically trying to reduce our dependence on Arab and Rusdsian oil. The Green agenda is convenient cover for that.

Individuals typically acquire beliefs due to a variety of influences, including social cohort and peer group. They need no "motive" to believe whatever it is they do believe. Any more than they need a "motive" for their choice of hairstyle.

That said, one of the mnost powerful drives is simply wanting to feel oneself to be a "good" person. As friends here will know, I feel no such need. Indeed, I am one of those people who get a perverse delight in other peoples misfortunes. I dont give the proverbial monkeys how "good" or "moral" others judge me. But those who do are essentially committed to believe ( or try to believe, or act as though they believe ) and behave according to what their culture tells them is "right" or "caring" or "just". Etc.
Hence the enduring power of religion.

I don't think you need look any further than these explanations.

However, I know of men who have adopted ideological positions and espoused causes so as to get into a womans knickers ( so to speak ).

I also see lots of people say and act in accordance with an image of the kind of lifestyle they wish to think themselves part of.

Then there is sheer conformity.

The oil companies etc may not have won a "propoganda war" because, as far as I can see, there are no TV companies and newspaper groups owned by oil companies dedicated to pushing their cause. Whereas most media channels are populated by the kind of people for whom an endorsement of the "Green" agenda is a crucial part of their self-image, in the manner previously noted. Indeed, for the first reason that I mentioned, above, the political drive to reduce oil dependency, even endorsed by George Bush, Oil companies are not going to have the same grasp on the levers of power as their critics contend and they may have had in the past.

Dixon

Conservative Cabbie.

Thanks for giving me some genuine thought. I think my positions are so blatant and extreme that many think I am either just a loudmouth, someone being ironic ( its been said ) or simply craving attention.

Whilst it would be true that I seek attention, I dont pick my views because I think they are attention grabbing but, on the contrary, want people to attend to perspectives that have absolutely grabbed me at a fundamental level.

In other words, I didnt used to be so nihilistic. I used to be of a utilitarian mien. But it didnt work FOR ME. And that, at the end of it is the crux of the matter. Caring about Humanity in an abstract sense...that is beyond the circle of ones family, friends and immediate community... only leads to depression. you cannot really do anything for the species anyway. So why not take the wider view. Humanity will have emerged and dissapeared in a mere moment of cosmological time. The Earth itself will be swallowed by the expanding sun, as it whirls away through space on the outskirts of a galaxy ccomprising a hundred thousand million similar such bodies ( give or take a zero ). Meanwhile, see to the welfare of ones community, ones friends and oneself. To the extent that that runs in ANY EXTREME counter to the interests of those outside that personal sphere.

The moral vacuum is what exists if you do not believe in a greater rule-giving entity. But my position on that is negative. I resent existence. If there is a creator, I detest it. I certainly am not going to worship it.

The problem I have is with those who renounce religion, are aetheists, but still believe there is a strange miasmic "morality" permeating the universe. Which of course is codswallop. No God = no morality. Like it or lump it.

We decide for ourselves how we act. Not in some vainglorious Nietschien sense but in simple everyday reality. That IS the reality of Human existence and those who renounce religious values but yet pretend to morality are merely using the concept to rationalise their own actions.

If you have a religious basis for your values, fine. I may disagree with them, but at least they have a basis and the position is consistent.

But the moralist ( of left or right ) whose values are plucked out of thin air and who draws self-gratification from dictating to others how they should lead their lives is a creature which I cannot but detest, viscerally.

Dixon

Cabbie: "My other concern is that your nihilistic approach to ethics and morality leads to a metaphysical vacuum. If those values are as fallacious as you say, how does one choose how to live? If the foundations of morality are removed as you propose, won't society crumble like a house of cards? Even if there is no trancendent order in the universe, isn't the charade of a justifiable morality a vital bulwark against at best anomie, and at worst a nihilistic anarchy."

That is all true. But what can I say. I didn't make the universe. I have to be honest about how I see it. If nihilistic anarchy is the outcome...so be it. However, I also think that the fact such anarchy does not occur is not because of useful delusions of "morality" but practical expedient. The law makers make the laws that suit them and theirs. The rest abide by or defy those laws according to an equivocation between what suits them and theirs on the one hand and the risk of incurring penalties on the other. Its a messy churning of societal gears. theres nothing in it that has anything to do wioth "morality".

Someone responding to my views said "But isnt that why there are so many problems in the world?"

This prompted me to formulate the response that "Nothing that happens in the world is a problem unless it adversely affects me or mine."

Straydingo

Julian Fruppapoipepauppioioip,

You made me lol "La-la-la, I can't hear you" line - I love it :)

Dixon

Michael B
February 9th, 2009 8:20pm
Dixon, no, the greater part of your commentary is not remotely consonant with my own. It is more inline with Dawkinsesque levels of tendentiousness; you're forwarding tautologies, circular reasoning and mere assertions and imagining them to be sound forms of argumentation"

No im not. Give me an example.

Dave

Dixon: Re, Mercury. Well no it doesn't have an atmosphere as a lay person might think of it. But a scientist would know it has an exosphere. (That's the very upper layer that makes up part of what we lump together as an stmosphere)

Ronnie

Dixon, two questions.

Please explain to me how you can resent existence? There is existence and non-existence, period. They are not values in themselves.

We are taught that God = morality but that doesn't make it true. Don't you agree that even if you're only concern is 'ones community, one's friends and oneself', this is a morality in its own right? You may have created it without any reference to the wider world but it is a morality nonetheless.

Conservative Cabbie

Dixon

"you cannot really do anything for the species anyway."

That just isn't true. Our actions will always affect others, their actions will affect others still and so on. We will all leave a legacy, the multiplicity of which is part of the development of humanity.

If you pay your taxes, be law-abiding, deal with others in a pleasant sociable manner, all those actions of yours have a net positive affect on society that goes beyond your local sphere of influence. That's my Burkean conservative mind talking.

"Caring about Humanity in an abstract sense... only leads to depression"

Does your nihilism make you happier? I don't really get that impression.

"Thanks for giving me some genuine thought"

You're welcome. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss something other than the politics of the Middle East.

Finaly, if you don't care about humanity outside your domestic arena, why are you engaged in a discussion with Ronnie on another post about Iraq? Just asking. And why bother entering into discussions on blogs? I suspect that you care more about the world than you let on.

Terry T

I am against the idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because there is no scientific evidence for it. Contrary to the propaganda there is no consensus within the climate science movement to support AGW. Only left-wing ideologues support the theory of AGW and they have caused an anti-CO2 hysteria that is without foundation. The fact is that :-
a) The Earth warms and cools without any input from man and has always done so.
b) Mans contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is negligible compared to that contributed by the oceans and other natural planetary processes.
c) CO2 does not cause global warming. Increases in the level of CO2 follows as a result of a warming.
d) CO2 is released from the oceans as water temperature rises. Ocean temperature rises and falls according to the suns activity and to activity within the planet itself.
e) Increased CO2 content in the atmosphere does not warm the planet so it follows that reducing mans CO2 output can make no difference whatsoever.
f) CO2 is essential for plant life, so an increase of it in the atmosphere is a benefit not a detriment.
The global warmers have so brainwashed the politicians that we are all now paying extra taxes to combat a threat that doesn't exist. Governments everywhere are basing their policies on something so unscientific it beggars belief. I do not believe that they have actually fallen for the AGW nonsense. They simply see it as a way of raising taxes whilst seeming to be 'green'. That is what I object to! They're taking us for fools!
Burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere. So? Cars with big engines emit more CO2 than those with small engines. So? Air travel puts CO2 into the atmosphere. So? What about it? What is so 'green' about stopping people indulging in these activities? There is no AGW so their 'green' stance really comes from the other meaning of 'green', i.e. jealousy of those who can afford to enjoy what their good fortune and hard work brings them.
Carbon trading, another waste of time, is no more than a means by which unscrupulous speculators get rich by pretending to be 'green'. What is so virtuous, so 'green' about transferring your rubbish to somewhere else, usually a poorer, developing country? It is only a 'virtual' transfer anyway. Nothing actually trades places! I'll wager that the people who dreamt up this scam are getting a kick-back from it and laughing all the way to the bank. Again, they're taking us for fools!

Ronnie

Has anyone read the novel 'Solaris' by Stanislaw Lem? Or seen the movie, by Tarkovsky (not the one with George Clooney)?

Julian Fruppapopipepauppioioip

Dixon and Straydingo, thanks for your replies.

Ronnie

Cabbie, Dixon, pub...?

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie

"Cabbie, Dixon, pub...?"

You're not suggesting that our intense philosophical discussions are of the 'pub philosopher' level are you? And there was me thinking that we were starting our own Coffee House enlightenment.

Anyway, you buying?

Michael B

Dixon, mutual respect, certainly. But when you state your opinion (e.g., "As I see it ..."), that's fine, as such you’re expressing an opinion, beliefs, intuitions, hypotheticals, a certain confidence or faith in those opinions, etc.

However, my comment about "tautologies, circular reasoning and mere assertions" concerned instances of opinion dressed up as fact. Iow, the subject being addressed is epistemology and valid truth claims vs. "mere" opinion. I'll remark upon a single example only. When you suggest "the phenomenology of such experiences [e.g., hope, altruism]" is "a part of the material universe" and further "is not something [] outside the realm of that which is susceptible to scientific scrutiny," you're indulging an unwarranted reduction. All that can be variously argued and opined upon, but it is not fact in an epistemologically demanding sense. Rather, it's dependent upon a philosophical outlook, specifically a materialist metaphysic and it's likewise dependent upon a "scientism," as previously described.
But again, mutual respect. I don't wish to nitpick but given the subject matter, it's entirely appropriate to distinguish opinion from fact - i.e. opinion from valid truth claims.

Dixon

Cabbie, folks here usually quote each other to criticise. But I just want to answer your entirely logical responses to myn last comment.

Word of caution, given the drift of these debates. I dont believe in morality but I m not some kind of wild eyed maniac with a dagger in clenched teeth and a musket in each hand. I know what "society" believes to be "right" and "wrong" and It suits me to abide by that even if I don't endorse it.

Conservative Cabbie
February 10th, 2009 2:37pm
Dixon
"you cannot really do anything for the species anyway."
That just isn't true. Our actions will always affect others, their actions will affect others still and so on. We will all leave a legacy, the multiplicity of which is part of the development of humanity.
If you pay your taxes, be law-abiding, deal with others in a pleasant sociable manner, all those actions of yours have a net positive affect on society that goes beyond your local sphere of influence. That's my Burkean conservative mind talking."

---All the circles of influence you describe are so. Yes, but three problems arise: 1) we cannot know what the effects will be. Private Tandey , Canadian infantry in 1918 had an Austrian corporal in his sights, he wanted to shoot him but after wrestling with his "morality" refrstrained himself. The Austrian could have shot but didnt was Adolf Hitler. Tandey's daughter has said he was torn apart by self-recrimination for all the years he had left after discovering what "good" he had done.

2) Nor can we know whether the effects we seek are in fact the best in the long run. I supported the miners strike.I've suince taken the view I was on the "wrong" side. Any cause anyone supports now, they may later regret.
3) The effects you refer to are mostly at the level of communities. Individuals, barring ones being Private Tandey or albert einstein, have in no real sense any effect whatsoever.

"Caring about Humanity in an abstract sense... only leads to depression"
Does your nihilism make you happier? I don't really get that impression."

---Oh but it has. I used to get depression because I cared about all people, most of whom treated me like &&&&. So if they are worth caring about, yet treat me so badly, the implication is that I am worthy of being so abused! On the other hand, if they are to put it politely a bunch of "mouseholes", that means that its not me who is deficient but them, in which case, however, WHY THE HELL GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEM. So long as my life was all wrapped up in various "causes" in the interest of "fellow man" I then found myself in an irresolvable dilemma. Every so often it resulted in a week or two of complete sreize up. Like my PC when I try to access Telegraph online. Solution: sod helpung them, sod the lot of them, I dont give a monkeys= No further dilemma. Believe me. it works. Indeed, most people know that. Its why most people already have that outlook. I am a slow starter and have a lot of selfishness to generate to make up for decades lost to "altruism"!

"Finally, if you don't care about humanity outside your domestic arena, why are you engaged in a discussion with Ronnie on another post about Iraq? Just asking.And why bother entering into discussions on blogs? I suspect that you care more about the world than you let on."

---Simply misinterpretation. these discussions are merely ENTERTAINMENT. What else could they be? Nothing any of us ever saysd about anything...unless some of us are secretly world leaders in our other life, will ever make any difference to anything.

I get particularly heated about certain topics, like Iraq, not because I give a monkeys but because the other sides arguments are like the proverbial red rag to a bull. whilst plauying this game, I consciously ommit to point out the equivalent flaws in the arguments of people on "my" side. Because it suits me to!

Indeed, on rare occasions, if I think I can get away with it, I take delight in pumping a line that I know doesnt make sense, just for the kick of creating the illusion that it does. if I can. Its a kind of prestidigitation. Some would say its akin to another thing done with the hands!

Dixon

Ronnie
February 10th, 2009 3:51pm
Has anyone read the novel 'Solaris' by Stanislaw Lem? Or seen the movie, by Tarkovsky (not the one with George Clooney)?"

I read it in my youth. More of a long short story than a novel. I only liked the idea that flight to the station was not in some wopper spaceship but by being put in a tube and shot there through space. very basic, Very East European vision that.

That tarkovsky film is an abomination in my opinion. Three hours of interviews with men who need a shave as I recall it. I also saw "Stalker" which is similarly abject but at least poses interesting questions about the ambiguity of beliefs. The best bit is when the little girl appears to make a glass move without touching it, only for it to be revealed in a few seconds that its reacting to vibrations from an oncoming locomotive.

I think Tarkwotsy was held aloft as a "great" director merely because he was a kind of dissident in the context of the cold war. A bitb like that bearded religious maniac, wotsisname...Sold yer nits to him!

The Soderstream version is better, if still piddle poor. At least its got good music. But a bit to self-regardingly "serious".
Anyway, what does any of this have to do with climate change.

Excuse me, Im ha\ving preoblems with names.

Dixon

Mods, visitors, countrymen, I am aware Ive posted a lot on nthis thread. But it is all in response to good questions I believe.

The problem with liking the sound of ones own nvoice isc that you cannot hear it whilst typing comments on the blogs!

Ronnie

Dixon, as I was reading through this thread Solaris came to mind. The point of the story is that the silent, mysterious planet below controls mens' minds to the extent that they believe they are being given the thing they either want or fear most (sometimes the same thing).

In effect the planet is a brain understandstanding and manipulating the human characters in the story.

It struck me, from some of the contributions above, that we are developing a similar situation here.

Dixon

Ronnie, I posted a reply to your questions earlier, it didnt contain anything critical let alone abusive ofd you or anyone else, but clearly when Im honest its too strong for publication.

As for Solaris, what happens in the story is meant to be literally happening. What you say by comparison is a metaphor. However, Lovelocks "Gaia" does constitute a way of thinking about "the planet" as literally one manipulating organism. Maybe what you propose might be seen as an extension of that.However, I dont think Lovelock thought of Gaia as a conscious entity, like Solaris.

By way of adddendum, i should say I took away from the story the useful idea of a school of science ( Solaristics I think it was translated as ) dedicated to a question fundamentally contrary to the possibility of being understood. Solaris cannot be understood because it is impossible to go there to study it without it interfering with the attempt to objectively go about such study.

There are many paralells in the "social sciences". "Issues" cannot really be studied in the same way as elements and chemicals. so in that sense I suppose, Human affairs are a bit like Solaris.

Solaris was a bit of an exception to Lems other work if I recall correctly. Most of it was satirical science fiction. Like that story in which extraterrestrials put the human race on trial for crimes against the universe.

Ronnie

Dixon, the idea I liked most from Solaris was that man has real trouble understanding an entity that can't be dominated.

The 'planet' was exerting almost total psycholigical control over people who had been sent there to study it. It was studying them in a complete reversal of roles.

I like your idea of understanding that something may not be understood. In some ways it makes our flailing around for definite answers rather comic and a little pathetic - 'the comfort of certainty'

Sounds a bit like 'the audacity of hope' or 'don't butter your toast on both sides'.

Dixon

Ronnie, its not my field, but I gather that physics has some things to say about that.

Not least the impossibility of knowing both the velocity and mass of a given particle, or momentum and position is it...I'd say its an UNCERTAINTY!

So what other Science Fiction do you like?

myke

Doh! Melanie never could get the hang of this.
The clue is in the name, "global warming".
Citing one part of the world getting warmer is irrelevant, its called global warming for a reason. If in 100 years the earth was on average 10C warmer, but one part was actually colder, would that mean there was no global warming? Of course not.

Dixon

Myke, the point here is not the average but that the projections inn question were made regarding Antarctica in particular. Hence the significance of whether one part was warmer than another, not the average for the continent, let alone the planet.

Indeed, where the global average is concerned there as been no warming at all this century. Which is why pro anthropogenists place so much stock by what happens in particular localities.

So the shoe is on the other foot really!

Ronnie

Dixon, Philip K. Dick. The master!

Conservative Cabbie

"I m not some kind of wild eyed maniac with a dagger in clenched teeth and a musket in each hand."

No, that's how Ronnie sees me.

"we cannot know what the effects will be."

I'm not sure that matters. I'm a strong believer that a persons intentions are more important than the potential outcome. Sure, there will be circumstances when despite a person's best intentions, that person's actions lead to a bad event. You're Canadian private is a case in point. But I believe those are the exceptions. If everyone acted honourably at all times, the world would be a far far better place. Now we can't guarantee that extreme, but all we can do is our bit.

"Nor can we know whether the effects we seek are in fact the best in the long run." - Ah, utilitarianism! No we can't predict the future, but we can make immediate assessments and if we believe that what we are doing is right, normally they will turn out to be so.

"The effects you refer to are mostly at the level of communities. Individuals, barring ones being Private Tandey or albert einstein, have in no real sense any effect whatsoever."

But we aren't just individuals. We are part of a wider environment than that. One individual may not be able to affect change, but a number of individuals acting together can. I'm not advocating a collectivist enforced response here, this is a conservative argument. we are all conditioned by the heritage of the past to act in a similar way with similar moral compasses. It is the progressive and abstract theories and idealogies of modern liberalism that has punctured this united wheel of gradual progress and that is why we are witnessing a societal breakdown and a moral collapse.

Philosophy is fun - but then I'm sad.

Ronnie

Come now Cabbie. That's hardly fair. We were out drinking only the other night.

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie
"Come now Cabbie. That's hardly fair. We were out drinking only the other night."

It was just a continuation of the warmongering type frivolity we were engaging in - nowt serious.

Dixon

Ronnie, good taste! I only read a few ( "The Man in The High Castle" and "Flow My Tears" being two I recall ) but isn't it amazing how many of his stories have now been made into movies!

One of my favourite movies based on Dick is "Imposter" with Gary Sneeze as the geezer who isnt.

Dixon

Cabbie, no its not "sad".. numbnuts devoting themselves to trying to be "cool" is "sad". A generation squandered on single twelve hour locked shots of geeks with weird haircuts... asleep ( ie "Big Brother" ). THAT is "sad".

I cannot set out to convert you to my brand of anomie, it would be a contradiction of it to do so. I.e, I can no longer set out to convert anyone to anything.

Maybe the truth is Im just out of steam. But its a lot less aggro than being all steamed up!

Conservative Cabbie

Myke

"The clue is in the name, "global warming".
Citing one part of the world getting warmer is irrelevant,"

And AGW advocates will often cite localised effects to demonstrate that the 'globe' is warming. Whether it be Kilimanjaro, tiny islands in the south pacific, Antarctica or Arctic ice. They can't have it both ways. If AGW advocates cite local evidence, then they must accept AGW sceptics doing the same.

Ann

"To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, ‘interpolate carefully’ makes us suck our teeth."

Hysterical nonsense. I don't believe Mel has a clue what interpolating means. Her scientific illiteracy is exposed every time she writes on the subject.
Interpolating is a perfectly valid data analysis tool.

Dixon

Conservative Cabbie
February 13th, 2009 7:42am
Myke
"The clue is in the name, "global warming".
Citing one part of the world getting warmer is irrelevant,"
And AGW advocates will often cite localised effects to demonstrate that the 'globe' is warming. Whether it be Kilimanjaro, tiny islands in the south pacific, Antarctica or Arctic ice. They can't have it both ways. If AGW advocates cite local evidence, then they must accept AGW sceptics doing the same."

Sorry Cabbie...I beat you to it on pointing out that one ( few posts up ).

Must be your round!

Dixon

Ann
February 13th, 2009 8:50am
"To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, ‘interpolate carefully’ makes us suck our teeth."
Hysterical nonsense. I don't believe Mel has a clue what interpolating means. Her scientific illiteracy is exposed every time she writes on the subject.
Interpolating is a perfectly valid data analysis tool."

The validity of interpolation is open to debate and the balance of opinion varies according to the context. In this instance, tMelanies reaction wa not to interpolation Per Se but the conveniently woolly interpretation of the process exploited by certain lobbyists. In particular, claiming as a valid interpolation data from a temperature monitor tha\t had been buried under snow for years and then restored to the surface, showing unsurprisingly a huge change in the data gathered by it.

Ronnie

Dixon, I've just realised you meant Gary Sinise (or whatever)!

Been scratching my head for days over this.